Klaus,
I don't know how you find the patience to deal with this kind of thing, but
I am glad that you spoke up. Someone has to do this from time to time or
else the point of this list will be totally lost. Shooting from the hip
belongs on Bruce Nussbaum's blog.
I, too, was annoyed by the continued poor argumentation. This is more than a
testing of ideas. It was yet another example of sly advocacy rather than
significant engagement. It distracts attention from the interesting and
serious posts made by others.
Perhaps you would agree that when someone feels as strongly as this person
seems to, he ought to be prepared to commit himself or herself in print for
review in the editorial process of a journal and for the historical record.
Where is the paper that tries to argue this view? Bloging like this is a
poor substitute for a serious paper.
Again, Klaus, thanks.
Richard
Richard Buchanan
Carnegie Mellon University
On 4/26/07 3:53 AM, "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> terry,
>
> grumpy i am far from it, but i admit that i get annoyed when i see people
> dismissing the ideas of others by peddling in empty generalities. you post
> was full of them.
>
> i didn't ask you to google "wicked problems" to evaluate the quality of
> various literatures using the term, but to become a little more humble and
> perhaps question your claim that rittel's contribution is overrated and
> outdated by better conceptions. if someone is the origin of a term that now
> googles over two million hits, he couldn't have been that insignificant. i
> am sure sigmund freud's creations yield far more hits than rittel's, who
> actually published very little. i invite you to take a word or phrase that
> you have contributed to the literature and see how many hits you get for it.
>
> i wouldn't question you on the fact that many users of the term have not
> read rittel's definition much less other watered down versions, but this is
> not the point because in your post you do not exhibit specific knowledge of
> the concept nor do you intelligently interrogate its details. you assert
> that a concept that has varied uses and takes too much effort to explain is
> somewhat worthless. I'd say you had a chance to clarify your understanding
> but you didn't
>
> i tried to look into the reviews for which you provided links, could find
> your dissertation but the others could not be found. your dissertation is
> primarily engineering oriented, stated already in its title, which is
> consistent with the contributions you typically make to this list. you
> reduce the social factors you include in your discussion to objective, i.e.,
> observer-independent engineering terms, not truly expanding design into the
> social dimensions.
>
> in your dissertation, you mention rittel quite a number of times but when it
> comes to wicked problems you associate wickedness with novelty/non-routine,
> ill-defined, ill-structured, lack of systematic methods, and with intuition.
> associations explain little, but your use of the term ill-defined not
> well-defined reveal a concept that deviates from rittel from the start.
> rittel recognized that wicked problems are of a kind very different from
> tame problems. you, however see wicked problems as deviant from the
> desirable form. it is therefore understandable that you have difficulties
> with handling wicked problems as legitimate forms. you apparently are
> considering tame problems as the legitimate kinds and wicked problem worth
> solving only if one can tame them. your conceptual framework is apparently
> trapped in one preferred conception, unable to consider deviant kinds as
> legitimate design issues.
>
> to make my point even clearer, at one place you even assert that you
> consider wicked problems not appropriate for design. in effect, you define
> design so as not to have to deal with wicked problems. personally this
> would seriously impoverish design. i would not accept such limitations
>
> klaus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence
> Love
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:15 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: History - design research and the minor role of the wicked idea
>
> Dear Klaus,
>
> Thanks for your message. It made me think. You sound grumpy.
>
> Iıve read Rittelıs work and I think I understand it. It has significance
> alongside other similar concepts of that era but the ay it seems in the
> current writing much of its current use seems to be driven by populist
> opinion rather than research utility. Contrast for example 'morphological
> analysis' and 'solution set analysis' both of which predate Rittel's
> wickedness and which offer practical approaches to addressing similar
> difficult design issues.
>
> You asked me to Google 'wicked problem'. In any practical research domain
> there are typically three very distinct discourses. The first is the
> research discourse. This discourse aims at precision and focuses on
> reducing ambiguity (by carefully defining terms and concepts), careful
> reasoning, avoiding fallacies and sophism and making reasoning transparent.
> The second discourse is the consultantıs or practitionerıs (designerıs)
> form of discourse that hopes to aspire to the aims of the research discourse
> whilst focusing on using terms and concepts that are common to all
> constituencies that are involved. Naturally, this discourse is typically
> epistemologically compromised. The third form of discourse is the loose
> everyday talk in which precision of meaning is not expected beyond what is
> necessary to have an appropriately amiable social chat. Iıve discussed this
> discourse issue and its implications for design research in more detail in
> Love, T. (2005). The Practical Implications of the Essentially Two-faced
> Nature of Design. In E. Corte-Real, C. A. M. Duarte & F. Carvalho Rodrigues
> (Eds.), Pride & Predesign The Cultural Heritage and the Science of Design
> 2005 (pp. 251-254). Lisbon: IADE/UNIDCOM A preprint is available at
> http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2005/Two%20faces%20of%20discou
> rses%20of%20design.htm
>
> Your suggestion for me to Google ³wicked problem² to justify your position
> reveals that most of the items about 'wicked problems' are in the second and
> third forms of discourse. Similar findings emerge from Googling say
> ³quantum² or ³pornography². In the case of 'quantum' a small number of items
> are from physicists using the term quantum as carefully defined in research.
> The remainder are in the other forms of discourse .
>
> A second and perhaps more visible concern is - if the potential conceptual
> clarification and precision offered by wickedı and tameı was so clear then
> it wouldnıt need so much explanation. Some of the Google items on wicked
> problemsı and some of the discussion on this list read like politicians
> trying to explain and justify a politically convenient soundbite. Iım
> reminded of Clinton explaining his interpretation of ³I did not have sex
> with that woman" and Blairıs explanation of why Britain went to war in Iraq!
>
> If the concepts of 'wicked' and 'tame' were that useful and accurate and
> capable of clearly distinguishing one thing from another, they would be
> easier to explain. Contrast for example the concept of ³indeterminate
> problem² a problem that has more degrees of freedom in its solution than
> the number of degrees of freedom constrained by the knowledge of the
> designer(s). That reminds me, Ranulph Glanville recently sent me a pointer
> to a great cybernetics paper which I canıt put my hand to at this time of
> night.
>
> You asked me to provide more analysis, more justification and a full
> description of the concepts around in the early days of design research. I
> had thought that background reading of the origins of design research was
> the sort of thing that would be expected of everyone researching at doctoral
> level in design research. It would be in many other disciplines.
> Its a tall order to knock off in an evening but ok. In this case, Iıll
> provide a review from the point of view of engineering design research. In
> the early stages of the design research field this aligns fairly well
> because much of design research at that time was shaped by engineering
> design.
>
>
> Iıve done a review of the literature from the 60s until recently and that
> can be found at
> http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/Pre2000/1998%20SEED
> <http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/Pre2000/1998%20SEED&DT_WP_App
> e> &DT_WP_Appe
> ndix%201.htm
>
> An annotated bibliography I wrote of the way the concept of designı was
> coined in the literature during that time can be found at
> http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/Pre2000/1998%20SEED
> <http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/Pre2000/1998%20SEED&DT_WP_App
> e> &DT_WP_Appe
> ndix%202.htm
>
> There is an analysis (my PhD) of the underlying epistemological foundations
> of different design research and theory positions and concepts relating to
> social, environmental, ethical and technical aspects of design and the
> development of epistemologically coherent design theory (Love, T. (1998).
> Social, environmental and ethical factors in engineering design theory: a
> post positivist approach. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Western
> Australia, Perth.) It can be found at
> http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/Pre2000/PhD_TL.doc
>
> Anything else?
>
> All the best,
>
> Terry
>
> PS That reference to Rittel (Rittel, H. W. J. (1971). Some Principles for
> the Design of an Educational System For Design. Design Methods Group
> Newsletter, 4(4).) is one that often doesn't get a mention. It shows much of
> Rittel's work (as you would expect) was dependent on the already well
> established systems field. Perhaps the better advice would be for design
> researchers to read about systems thinking rather than Rittel?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2007 3:39 PM
> To: 'Terence Love'; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: History - design research and the minor role of the wicked idea
>
> terry,
>
> i read your dismissal of rittel's distinction between tame and wicked
> problems as overblown in its significance. i like to invite you to read his
> criteria for deciding which is which and the reasons for why this
> distinction is helpful methodologically. rittel did not write much, but he
> had a major impact on the literature (google wicket problems). he deserves
> a fair interrogation of what he said.
>
> you are playing a version of the well known but cheap game of saying that
> someone else's idea is older than mine or has been overshadowed by more
> recent developments that i know of but wouldn't tell you; or that it derived
> from an area that is no longer of interest, without saying what it is that
> has outdated interest in the concept.
>
> i am genuinely opposed to defining design so narrowly that only one or a few
> preferred paradigms become admissible, like problem solving, which is only
> one way of designing. any generalization should embrace a diversity of
> practices, it should build upon or add to past distinction, not reduce them
> to insignificance. this is how theories in the sciences grow: embracing
> more and finer distinctions, not imposing increasingly narrow conception,
> here about design.
>
> you are making references to many design theorists of rittel's time and of
> more before and after him. you gave only one pair of names, the editors of
> the 1963 design research conference, jones & thornley. i invite you to put
> some substance to your generalizations. by that i do not mean giving us a
> list of references to literature or the list of the many names of design
> theorists you claim to have made contributions to understanding design.
> please tell us what these theorists actually did, how they defined the
> empirical domain of their theory, and what the theory actually suggested,
> predicted or explained. you owe us the details that your generalizations
> left uncomfortably empty.
>
> you speak of the rich literature in many design disciplines. i know of your
> admirable effort to catalogue such design disciplines. it would be
> interesting to go beyond this list and hear what they have in common (other
> than the name design), what methods they follow, what we can learn from this
> supposedly rich literature. since i am not acquainted with the literature
> of these many design disciplines, it does not exist for me unless you prove
> otherwise. this is what good scholars do.
>
> in much of our discussions, you have been notably uncomfortable with the
> concept of wicked problems and disagreed with the notion of stakeholders.
> your discomfort or perhaps lack of understanding is no justification to
> consider the concept of wickedı problems a "furphy" (not in my dictionary),
> a sound biteı for design educators or design proponents bidding for
> funding. your claim that there are better concepts needs to be
> demonstrated, not merely declared.
>
> let me add that yes, every author writes in his or her time and cultural
> milieu. also, no author can be an expert on everything. this applies to
> rittel as well. he never claimed to be a design theorist. he just
> conceptualized what he was confronted with and left us with much to talk
> about and digest. to me this is enough not to dismiss his ideas.
>
> klaus
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence
> Love
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:08 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: History - design research and the minor role of the wicked idea
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I think it is helpful to remember that there are many other concepts that
> predate and in many ways more powerful than Rittelıs idea of wickednessı.
> Historically, Rittel's 'wicked' problem idea has a minor role in the overall
> development of concepts in design theory that has become conceptually
> overblown.
>
>
>
> Rittelıs idea of a wickedı problem is historically located in the
> development of the fields of town planning, urban planning and urban design.
> Somehow, people seem to have forgotten that its primary reason for existence
> was in education development in these areas (see, Rittel, 1971).
>
>
>
> In the late 60s and early 70s, theory was relatively undeveloped in urban
> planning fields in spite of their long history as a practical discipline. In
> many ways, theory of planning at that point was primarily defined by three
> geometric topoi: tessellation (laying out of shapes/tiles), reticulation and
> graph theory (connecting shapes with each other/ passing things down a
> channel), and the four and five colour pencil constraint (to cover a 2D
> surface without ever having two similar regions together you need 4
> different types of entities/colours. Until relatively recently, it was
> believed that you needed five colours). Allocation of land uses and the
> documentation of decisions were strongly shaped by these.
>
>
>
> As a result, urban planning theory was in character rather more
> functionalist in theory terms than many other design disciplines at that
> time.
>
>
>
> In parallel, during the 60s and early 70s was the development of the
> foundations of what is now the design research movementı. Many credit a key
> point in its origins the 1963 conference organised by Jones & Thornley
> (Jones & Thornley, 1963) and the work of the contemporaneous Design Methods
> Group in the US. In general, the primary hope and direction of design
> research at this time was to identify a universal design process to automate
> the identification of the bestı design outcomes. Many of these approaches
> in the fledgling design research societyı focused on developing design
> methods to systematically automate design. To some extent, Rittelıs early
> wickedı thinking triangulates into this discourse.
>
>
>
> In many design disciplines, however, there were already rich
> well-established literatures about design activity that predated the efforts
> of these new 60s mini groups of theorists on design research by decades or
> in some cases hundreds of years.
>
>
>
> The new groups that would become the design research society and the design
> methods movement were tiny and their research relatively naïve and
> insignificant relative to these established discourses. What the new design
> research groups offered, however, was a new and tight focus on the specifics
> of the design process itself in particular, the development of new methods
> for designers to use. (This is reflected in the fact that design research
> was known as design methodsı or design meth
|
